Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
krazikilla

Priority of Bugfixing and features of BIS

Recommended Posts

First of all, i like this game series since 2001 operation flashpoint and for me its still the best game out there.

I am just wondering, when i see the daily Dev-Changelog that there is a lot of polishing going on, and a lot of small things are gettin fixed and tweaked BUT, the actual feedbacktracker is, as far as it seems, totally out of focus.

If you look at the 10-20 highest rated featuers in the feedbacktracker, a lot of them, one might think, needed core-features, in a game like arma in 2013 are not touched for some reason.

Everyday i check the dev-changelog and hope to see some nice, game experience improving, things finally getting implemented, but nope, mostly just other small stuff getting tweaked.

Whenever someone criticises this, ppl say, all this polishing and minor stuff adding, doesnt take away workpower from the engine developers - but on the other hand, what are they doing then?

What is the policy of BIS here?

I think there are either 2 possibilities:

- Either they want to bugfix the game as it is to 99% of bugs and just add minor new things. They might add some important stuff much later, to never and let even actually very much wanted core featuers beeing added only by addons.

- They dont have any/enough core-engine programmers who are able to actually add some nice things from feedbacktracker.

In my experience as Project leader of international big IT Projects we do it mostly the other way around:

We first implement the core featuers of new Systems and later polish it or ofcourse, if engouh human ressoruces are avaliable, we do both at once. Thats why i dont really understand what is happening here.

What you think about this hole thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think at this state of life cycle there will be minimal amount or none of completely new features (the feedback tracker's most voted) implemented. Maybe after a year or so as an expansion or something. They're just polishing the finished product. There's no reason to suppose otherwise.

Just because people want something, doesn't mean BIS makes it. They have created a product as they see fit.

If this was some tailored software we specifically ordered from them, we'd just throw more money at them and they'd do what ever we say. A game development is other way around. BIS creates a product and we consider if we should buy it.

Edited by Greenfist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graphics > Gameplay. You should check out the new fancy light shafts :)

Seriously tho, I have noticed the same thing. I keep checking the changelog hoping to find "bipods have been implemented" or something like that for a while now. Although don't lose your hope just yet, the latest Dslyecxi community video did drop a hint of some new multiplayer functionality coming soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Graphics > Gameplay we have hundrets of other so called AAA titles which are doin this to the perfectionism.

--> uninteresting and boring unity - all the same.

Seriosly, i dont think that much people would choose: fancy lightshaft over weaponrest or better grenadethrowing system.

And here we are at the point again: Graphic artists will not, in any way stop the engine programmers from work. So basicly both things should be some kind of possible. Even i have the feeling there is some kind of direction to Graphic > Gameplay, my brain tells me, its not really true. Thats why i am a bit confused.. :raisebrow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were to find excuse I'd hope features like weapon resting, wind, walkable vehicles ( I hope much refined physx just need bit more time and they're not simply done with it ) will come in some sort of DLC / expansion like the operation arrowhead but what I think is that BI is never going to bother with most of these features and if I were to assume and /or guess why -

The usual gibberish about how costy and time consuming it is, therefore ever to be bothered with, or the lack of resources and manpower or another (climate:colorsilver) related excuses. Whatever the reason, the ( undoubtedly fine AAA title visuals { except explosions,mid textures and PIP things not so much though } I personally consider visuals nothing more than selling point and not the most desired around arma.

I might sound like utterly unhappy / ungrateful with the game but its always been like this so far - Arma never feels like complete or even finished game and the saying comes to mind - a step forward and two back...

The game however might need to be definitely judged in about a year ( or even much later ) from now but one thing I know is I won't be getting another instalment ( arma4 ) for it's nice graphics if the core features are left untouched once again.

Edited by Bee8190

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The todays, and unfortunatly almost all Devbrach Changelogs only enforces my point of view.

05-11-2013

EXE rev. 111857

Size: ~181 MB

Fixed: AH-9 minigun barrel axis is wrong (http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=645)

Adjusted HUD of Buzzard

New underwater effect for smoke grenades

Thin armor plate surface added

Fixed: BIS_fnc_deleteTask no longer attempts to delete non-existent tasks

Fixed: Tasks were not deleted globally (by the previous function)

Changed BLUFOR Recon Marksman default rifle to EBR (from MXM variant)

Fixed: SUV has a texture error inside (http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=13883)

Decreased weight of OPFOR Marksman Rahim rifle

Increased weight of BLUFOR Marksman MXM variant rifle

Tweaked camera shaking from medium and heavy ordnance firing, hits and explosions

Fixed: Stretched LCD overlay UV for CROWS optics

Better LCD screen resolution for current state of vehicle optics

Fixed: Bad normal mapping on MRCO optic

Slammer fire geometry and damage setup improvement (WIP)

Event handlers return value is used only if non-null (details)

@BIS: if people who are doing things like:

New underwater effect for smoke grenades

Thin armor plate surface added

Decreased weight of OPFOR Marksman Rahim rifle

Increased weight of BLUFOR Marksman MXM variant rifle

Tweaked camera shaking from medium and heavy ordnance firing, hits and explosions

Changed BLUFOR Recon Marksman default rifle to EBR (from MXM variant)

If ppl who are working on this nice tweaks and fixes can also work on a "weapon rest" or other highvoted feedbacktracker feature - Why cannot you let them do things which 99% of the community wishes and would have much more impact then a "changed bluefor recon maksman rifle" thingy. :(

AND if its not the same type of people - what are the engine-dudes doing? :confused:

Basicly i think, what i and a lot of other community members would love to see, is an official statement about the status of some of the most demanded featuers / fixes of the feedback tracker. And not something like: "we would like to implement it, but we cannot promise anything...." or "there are already addons for this kind of things"

And dont get me wrong, i know how important polished software is and i love that you are polishing and tweaking in all corners, i am just really wondering about the priority.

Edited by KrAziKilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, point out an obvious fact: Arma 3 is a BI product, and they don't have any direct obligation with the players ( who can buy or don't buy the game ).

Second, my perception is that BI have their own road map for the development of the game, and its to it that they stick.

Third, I agree with you that it would be nice that BI could solve at least the first ten points in the feedback tracker ( and I hope they will ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Features are made by programmers (aside from basic design done by designers).

So I would suspect they are occupied with supporting campaign development, fix crashes, work on steam integration, tools and such.

Just too little manpower to get more done I'd assume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread-derailing posts deleted. Please keep it on-topic or keep out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the idea of taking aside 1-2 programmers, for 1-2 weeks, implemting 1-2 feedbacktracker high prio - features?

I mean it would be an idea to "calm down the crowd" and signalizing the community that theyr feedback, not just in bugfixing and tweaking (where BIS is for sure doing an outstanding job) - BUT ALSO in actually implementing new "gameplay improving" features would be taken into account. (i dont mean graphics, which are also already top notch - with the very sad exepction of the midrange textures -> Look at Nordkindchens Thread)

Yes, we might get a bit of a smaller changelog in this time, but at the end we would have a nice new feature implemented. To be honest the game is already, from my feeling, quite well polished and playable in its current state. Just missing some new gameplay elements.

Edit: thx @Maddox

Edited by KrAziKilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about the idea of taking aside 1-2 programmers, for 1-2 weeks, implemting 1-2 feedbacktracker high prio - features?

I mean it would be an idea to "calm down the crowd" and signalizing the community that theyr feedback, not just in bugfixing and tweaking (where BIS is for sure doing an outstanding job) - BUT ALSO in actually implementing new "gameplay improving" features would be taken into account. (i dont mean graphics, which are also already top notch - with the very sad exepction of the midrange textures -> Look at Nordkindchens Thread)

I don't know BI dev process in deep, neither how many programmers do they have working on A3; but to me that doesn't seem feasible. To me it seems that the top Feedback tracker requests would take a larger group of developers and way more time than just 1-2 weeks, probably months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know BI dev process in deep, neither how many programmers do they have working on A3; but to me that doesn't seem feasible. To me it seems that the top Feedback tracker requests would take a larger group of developers and way more time than just 1-2 weeks, probably months.

Not necessary - They could for example choose a few of the "rather easy to implement" features like:

1st: Deploying a weapon / proper use of bipods

2nd: Add ability to climb onto/over objects

3rd: Grenade throwing is unrealistic (-> rolling/throwing, cooking, throwing close for example over wall)

4th: Realistic Wounding System (not sure how easy tbh)

5th: [Feature request] Fast Roping

Just make a poll of a few realistic - fast implementable things and let us choose 1-2 of them?

I seriously think at least some of the just stated ones are doable in a quite low amount of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the ones you mentioned, the only one that I think could be solved in a week or two is fast roping. The others would take a long time and lot of testing.

( My opinion is limited, as is based in having studied computer science in the university and worked in a PSP game development )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose a related question would be whether BIS are willing to implement features engine-side that are player-specific and not applicable to AI. otherwise improved grenade throwing, climbing etc would be likely to enter a long period of development as all kinds of testing & tweaking is done to not break existing gameplay expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose a related question would be whether BIS are willing to implement features engine-side that are player-specific and not applicable to AI. otherwise improved grenade throwing, climbing etc would be likely to enter a long period of development as all kinds of testing & tweaking is done to not break existing gameplay expectations.

Exactly what leads me and I suspect some others to bemoan the apparent shift of focus from MP to SP. When you improve an MP feature, there is, by definition at least 1 other player to see and adore it. In SP, it's just 1 person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no difference here than any of the other threads similar, including the recently closed thread.

They seem to ask legitimate questions, but then get bogged down by the people who deny anything is wrong, plus get no answers from BI.

The company ‘BI’ have a duty to employ enough people of the correct qualifications to provide the product that has been paid for, that’s it, nothing more to say, that's what being in business means.

The game is full of problems, has been for many years, only in this industry would they get away with it, then ask for money up front to try it all again, weird really.

I ran my own company for just over 30yrs, building very large leisure activity items, these had to be correct and built/finished to a high standard ‘before’ I got any payment, i.e. they required a government legislated independently certificated, ‘certificate of conformity’ inspection, that was to both British Standards and CE euro standards, to be issued, for a payment to made, and in-fact for the item to be allowed to be used.

BI should stand up and say, the game is not to a sellable state, I don’t even think many would ask for their money back, provided they say, they intend to fix it and in what time frame, even a year, but they don’t, that leads to these repeated threads, that just come on here and if not liked by the regime, I understand that too, its run by fans, so its hard to get across complaints when they think there is nothing wrong, so therefore threads that they can’t agree with are closed.:rolleyes:

OP, you ask what the policy is, its answered above, it seems fairly obvious to me, after over a decade of dodging the issues, its pretty much sure we can say, they’re not really that bothered..

That’s completely on topic, all of it, I use my own experiences of producing and selling as an example, not as a boast of any kind, most all reputable companies provide items built/made that are fit for and intended for purpose plus worth the money paid.

The tracker is a prime example, BI should throw off all of the things that don't apply, things they would argue weren't going to be part of the game or makeup of the game originally, but they should say that these things weren't going to be done. Then they should have a good look at the tracker and decide in which order of importance they will start putting things right. Don't let the customer rule what you didn't intend providing, tell them straight, what was intended, don't hang around making the problem grow, because all that happens, the longer you leave it, the larger the problem grows.

I use the word reputable, reputable companies can make mistakes, but the first good practise is to issue a statement acknowledging that fact, then giving a time frame in which they will put it right, completely right, everything working as it should to the original spec/design/format etc.. Not a lot to ask of a company, not really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly what leads me and I suspect some others to bemoan the apparent shift of focus from MP to SP. When you improve an MP feature, there is, by definition at least 1 other player to see and adore it. In SP, it's just 1 person.

I should say that AI considerations apply as much to MP as to SP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The company ‘BI’ have a duty to employ enough people of the correct qualifications to provide the product that has been paid for, that’s it, nothing more to say, that's what being in business means.

I think you are completely wrong, the reality is just the opposite.

BI doesn't work under a contract, BI develops a product, then is the market/costumers who decide if its worth to buy it or not. As far as I know, Arma 3 copies have been sold widely, which mean that BI people are doing something right.

The game is full of problems, has been for many years, only in this industry would they get away with it, then ask for money up front to try it all again, weird really.

That's your own opinion. In my experience different industry sectors have similar practices, and as far as they don't infringe any law, it's perfectly accepted. After all we are talking about a piece of entertaining.

BI should stand up and say, the game is not to a sellable state

Again that is your own opinion, a lot of people are happy with the game, you just have to check the campaign ratings, or the professional gaming media reviews. Is everyone wrong but you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you are completely wrong, the reality is just the opposite.

BI doesn't work under a contract, BI develops a product, then is the market/costumers who decide if its worth to buy it or not. As far as I know, Arma 3 copies have been sold widely, which mean that BI people are doing something right.

That's your own opinion. In my experience different industry sectors have similar practices, and as far as they don't infringe any law, it's perfectly accepted?

Maybe in Finland, a company can setup and produce unfit products and get away with it, they do here in the U.K, but the consequences can be pretty bad. Regards the rest, yes its my opinion as yours is yours, you say everyone else thinks the game is fine, I'm not so sure, really, are you..

Don't want to derail so I've said what I said and it stands for anyone to prove or disprove, I'm not really that concerned as I don't play A3 much, the tracker tells the story of whether or not the game is right as it stands..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I should say that AI considerations apply as much to MP as to SP.

Not in MP PvP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only agree that there seems to be a mismatch between the things that are being developed by BIS and the things that the community is - in some cases at least - asking for since Arma 1 and i think it is finally time to address those things. And i do not think that the most voted up feature requests on the feedback tracker are demanding things that are too hard to implement or too much effort to achieve.

So please, please, please BIS: Use the feedback tracker and implement the things that we - the players - are waiting for so long! Thanks! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this was some tailored software we specifically ordered from them, we'd just throw more money at them and they'd do what ever we say.
This is almost certainly why some features are VBS2 only, moreso than any actual "attempt to price-segregate".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They could for example choose a few of the "rather easy to implement" features like:

I love it when non-developer types say this :yay:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love it when non-developer types say this :yay:

I love it when people complain about doing their jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×